Indias rank and proportionate share in the global research output part 1: how data sourced from different databases can produce different outcomes (original) (raw)
Related papers
arXiv: Digital Libraries, 2020
India is emerging as a major knowledge producer of the world in terms of proportionate share of global research output and the overall research productivity rank. Many recent reports, both of commissioned studies from Government of India as well as independent international agencies, show India at different ranks of global research productivity (variations as large as from 3rd to 9th place). The paper examines this contradiction; tries to analyse as to why different reports places India at different ranks and what may be the reasons thereof. The research output data for India, along with the ten most productive countries in the world, is analysed from three major scholarly databases: Web of Science, Scopus and Dimensions for this purpose. Results show that both, the endogenous factors (such as database coverage variation and different subject classification schemes) and the exogenous factors (such as subject selection and publication counting methodology) cause the variations in dif...
2020
During the last two decades, India has emerged as a major knowledge producer in the world, however different reports put it at different ranks, varying from 3rd to 9th places. The recent commissioned study reports of Department of Science and Technology (DST) done by Elsevier and Clarivate Analytics, rank India at 5thand 9th places, respectively. On the other hand, an independent report by National Science Foundation (NSF) of United States (US), ranks India at 3rd place on research output in Science and Engineering area. Interestingly, both, the Elsevier and the NSF reports use Scopus data, and yet surprisingly their outcomes are different. This article, therefore, attempts to investigate as to how the use of same database can still produce different outcomes, due to differences in methodological approaches. The publication counting method used and the subject selection approach are the two main exogenous factors identified to cause these variations. The implications of the analytic...
arXiv: Digital Libraries, 2020
During the last two decades, India has emerged as a major knowledge producer in the world, however different reports put it at different ranks, varying from 3rd to 9th places. The recent commissioned study reports of Department of Science and Technology (DST) done by Elsevier and Clarivate Analytics, rank India at 5thand 9th places, respectively. On the other hand, an independent report by National Science Foundation (NSF) of United States (US), ranks India at 3rd place on research output in Science and Engineering area. Interestingly, both, the Elsevier and the NSF reports use Scopus data, and yet surprisingly their outcomes are different. This article, therefore, attempts to investigate as to how the use of same database can still produce different outcomes, due to differences in methodological approaches. The publication counting method used and the subject selection approach are the two main exogenous factors identified to cause these variations. The implications of the analytic...
2021
This scientometric study analyses the research productivity of the first ten NIRF ranking academic institutes in India using Web of Science (WoS) data. In particular, this study focused on research output in terms of the total number of publications as indexed in the Web of Science database, citations received, and research area. We examined 42300 publications downloaded from the Web of Science. The results show that the publications output of each institute is in increasing trend but yearly citations per publication are uniform. On the other hand, articles per journal statistics show that publications are scattered distributed in various journals, not centered on only a few preferred journals. For the classification of research publications by subject, we used a modified subject group, which is based on OECD and ESI of WoS. It has been seen that the productivity in chemical sciences is maximum which also supports the world report
Indian Publication Output during 1998-2009: Quantitative Analysis Based on Web of Science
Journal of Indian Library Association, 2011
An attempt has been made to study the Indian publications output under various parameters viz.Publications counts, Journals covered, Subject, language, and Institutions wise distribution along with the Collaboration country pattern taking web of Science as the source. Publications show the steady growth in number of total items during 1998 to 2009. It is observed that in the field of Basic sciences Indian scientists prefer to publish more papers in non Indian journals covered by SCI, and reverse trend is observed for applied sciences. Institution wise highest numbers of items have contributed by the authors of Indian Institution of Technology followed by Indian Institute of Science, Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, and All Indian Institution of Medical science. Indian researchers collaboration pattern show a positive trend with USA authors. From the study it has been noticed that there is no difference in findings of earlier studies in respect of publications output though taken for the different time periods. It is concluded that overall trend almost remains the same as reported in the earlier studies which have also taken qualitative aspect in view.
Current Science (Bangalore), 2010
We have carried out a three-part study comparing the research performance of Indian institutions with that of other international institutions. In the first part, the publication profiles of various Indian institutions were examined and ranked based on the h-index and p-index. We found that the institutions of national importance contributed the highest in terms of publications and citations per institution. In the second part of the study, we looked at the publication profiles of various Indian institutions in the high-impact journals and compared ...
Assessment of Scientific Productivity by India and South Korea
2021
The purpose of this study is to make a quantitative analysis and to compare scientific productivity between the countries of India and South Korea: both countries offer scholarships and fellowships for various programs and disciplines. The data are collected from SCOPUS through the open access portal www.scimagojr.com and mainly focus on rank and number of publications, global publication share and growth of publications, international collaboration pattern, quality of publications, and open access pattern. Various bibliometric indicators have been used along with simple percentage. Further, a new relative indicator Relative Open Access Index (ROAI) is proposed to compare the number of documents in an open access platform with its overall scientific production. Among the most productive countries, India is ranked at fifth and South Korea at thirteenth in the year 2018. India improved by eight positions while South Korea did by three from 1998 to 2018 at the global level. South Korea...
Research Productivity and Citation Impact of Indian institutes of Science Education and Research
DESIDOC Journal of Library & Information Technology
The paper’s main objective is to investigate the trends of basic science research in India using a combination of qualitative and quantitative approaches. It examines the publication patterns and impact of research productivity of five basic science institutions, i.e., “Indian Institutes of Science Education and Research” (IISER), namely IISER Kolkata, IISER Pune, IISER Mohali, IISER Bhopal, and IISER Thiruvananthapuram. The research output indexed in the SCOPUS bibliographic database of these five established IISERs was obtained from 2015 to 2019. A total number of 7329 research publications were analysed using various scientometric dimensions. This paper makes a concerted effort to present a comprehensive picture of the assessment of research outcomes at the five older IISERs, which are ostensibly India’s most active and prominent basic science research institutions. The findings reveal that these institutions are accountable for important research outcomes, such as a high number ...